On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 15:55, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 15:33, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Maybe this would be better? > > > > > "returns true if jit is enabled and JIT compilation is available in > > > this session (see Chapter 31)." > > > > The general, non-hacker meaning of "jit is enabled" would seem to > > be pretty much what this function is already doing; and for that > > matter, the same can be said for "JIT compilation is available". > > We need something that's less tautological-looking. Maybe along > > the lines of > > > > "returns true if a JIT compiler extension is available and the > > <varname>jit</varname> parameter is set to <literal>on</literal>; > > That's probably better. FWIW, the "jit" is already a link to the GUC > docs, so I had in mind that users would have known we meant "jit" the > GUC rather than "jit" the feature. Your wording will help for anyone > who thinks we're talking about the feature. > > > when this is true, JIT compilation will be performed." > > I'd probably drop this part since it's not really true. The query has > to exceed the cost thresholds before that'll happen. I pushed a doc change for this with slightly revised wording from what you mentioned. https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=d7c8576ebe3949a644c700a9f54d88e7e373a647 David
